Signs in Australian Electoral Commission colours told voters ‘the correct voting method’ was to put a ‘1’ next to the Liberal candidate

Independent Oliver Yates has threatened to take the Liberal party to the court of disputed returns over Chinese language signs, designed to resemble Australian Electoral Commission material, that directed people to vote Liberal.

Labor also complained about the signs, which appeared at polling places on election day in electorates including Chisholm, a marginal Liberal seat, and Kooyong, where Yates ran against the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg.

The signs, using the purple and white AEC colours, told voters “the correct voting method” was to put a “1” next to the Liberal candidate and then number the rest of the boxes from lowest to highest.

Fine print at the bottom of the signs said they were authorised by Simon Frost for the Liberal party’s Victoria division.

On Saturday, the AEC advised Labor and Yates it would not take action because the signs were authorised and there were no rules regarding the use of colour in campaign signage.

Advice by Marque Lawyers managing partner Michael Bradley, for Yates, argues the signs breach section 329 of the Electoral Act, because they are “misleading or deceptive”.

The AEC relied on the high court’s interpretation that the ban “concerns conduct which affects the process of casting a vote rather than the formation of the political judgment”.

But Yates’s lawyer has written to the AEC warning that the signs were an “emphatic direction on how to vote” without “permissive language to indicate choice” and were therefore “not directed to the formation of the judgment”.

“The colour of the corflute and absence of any party logos or branding make it appear to be an official AEC poster,” Bradley said. “There is a very real risk the reader would think they are being told by the AEC that, to record a valid vote, they must vote 1 for Liberal.

“That risk is indisputable.”

Bradley argued that anybody who was “not familiar with Australian electoral processes may not be aware that the AEC would never direct the order of the vote” and could therefore be deceived.

“The fact that it was in Chinese language, and therefore clearly directed to a specific minority group of voters with a higher than average likelihood of having poor English language skills, and a higher than average likelihood of having a poor understanding of the voting process, is highly relevant.”

Bradley urged the AEC not to declare the result of the Kooyong and to urgently reconsider whether the sign was in breach of the law “to avoid an approach to the court of disputed returns in relation to this matter”. The AEC has rejected the demands, because it does not believe the signs breach the law.

Yates told Guardian Australia it was “extraordinary” that misleading and deceptive conduct was accepted as the “trade craft” of politics.

“I stood on a platform of political integrity and this is the most appalling thing I’ve seen in my working life,” he said.

Yates said Marque intends to pursue the matter in the court of disputed returns on his behalf and he will refer it to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

“It’s irrelevant to my electoral result … but from the point of view of political integrity there is a principle at stake.”

Former AEC official Michael Maley said use of the colour purple “is not a breach” of electoral law but the case would depend on the precise translation of the Chinese text.

“If the implication is there is only one formal way to vote, that is in all probability highly shocking,” he said.

Guardian Australia understands Labor has not considered further avenues of appeal or sought legal advice, as it is waiting for the count to be finalised in Chisholm.

But Labor believes the signs may breach the new offence of impersonating a commonwealth body, a law passed in the last parliament to address Coalition outrage about Labor text messages before the 2016 poll warning voters that “time is running out to save Medicare”.

Yates said he would seek legal advice on that offence, suggesting that Liberal mailouts to help voters complete postal vote applications – which harvest voter information before they are then forwarded to the AEC – had also confused voters who believed they were from the AEC.

Labor’s Jennifer Yang is currently behind by 963 votes in the battle for Chisholm against Liberal Gladys Liu.

Yates won a primary vote of 9.8% in Kooyong, a seat Frydenberg is set to hold with a primary vote of 49%.

Not as badly as the criminal who was authorising the printing of signs in Mandarin that were in AEC purple, next to AEC signage, and telling Chinese Australians that the "correct" way to vote was to put the number "1" next to the Liberal party and then number all the other boxes. Misleading voters in this way is a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison and a substantal fine.

The ALP should not let this misconduct go, but should challenge both in the Court of Disputed Returns with the goal of annulling the results, forcing by-elections and jailing the criminals. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept!

I do agree it was misleading and is a NO NO...lets hope the Chinese voters are not as stupid as we appear to be making them out to be... and they actually think for themselves.

just sayin!

There's a difference between stupidity and ignorance. I suggest you learn it before posting again.

Some Chinese immigrants have no previous experience with multi-party democracy. Some of them won't understand that their vote is their decision. They can be deceived by a sign in AEC purple that says (in Mandarin) that the "correct" way to vote is to vote Liberal 1 and then number the other boxes, especially when that sign is placed right next to an official sign in AEC purple.

It is intended to be misleading. Misleading voters in this way is a criminal offence. The person who authorised these signs belongs in jail because that is the prescribed penalty.

I do agree it was misleading and is a NO NO...lets hope the Chinese voters are not as stupid as we appear to be making them out to be... and they actually think for themselves.

just sayin!

There's a difference between stupidity and ignorance. I suggest you learn it before posting again.

ooops the forum nazi is back..

Some Chinese immigrants have no previous experience with multi-party democracy. Some of them won't understand that their vote is their decision. They can be deceived by a sign in AEC purple that says (in Mandarin) that the "correct" way to vote is to vote Liberal 1 and then number the other boxes, especially when that sign is placed right next to an official sign in AEC purple.

It is intended to be misleading. Misleading voters in this way is a criminal offence. The person who authorised these signs belongs in jail because that is the prescribed penalty.

as you say SOME... and not all chinese living here are new migrants..

maybe its you that needs to learn the difference about being stooopid bam..

I do agree it was misleading and is a NO NO...lets hope the Chinese voters are not as stupid as we appear to be making them out to be... and they actually think for themselves.

just sayin!

There's a difference between stupidity and ignorance. I suggest you learn it before posting again.

ooops the forum nazi is back..

Some Chinese immigrants have no previous experience with multi-party democracy. Some of them won't understand that their vote is their decision. They can be deceived by a sign in AEC purple that says (in Mandarin) that the "correct" way to vote is to vote Liberal 1 and then number the other boxes, especially when that sign is placed right next to an official sign in AEC purple.

It is intended to be misleading. Misleading voters in this way is a criminal offence. The person who authorised these signs belongs in jail because that is the prescribed penalty.

as you say SOME... and not all chinese living here are new migrants..

maybe its you that needs to learn the difference about being stooopid bam..

its not my fault you lost..... I did help but thats about all..

Personal attacks, now cods? Is that an example of the wanton disregard for rules and laws that is the hallmark of some conservatives such as the amoral mob we have in Parliament?

Maybe you need a nice long SUSPENSION so you can learn that breaking the rules has CONSEQUENCES. Do you want that? If you don't, then apologise.